8/17/2019 02 04 2016 016 a Giant Step for Myanmar

1/1

Sacredspace Fun & Games

 I want to get to make gameswhere you’re not trying to winor lose; you’re not trying to get a higher score – you are having unbelievable amounts of funas you learn about yourself and the world. That’s what 

 games can do!Warren Spector

Union minister of urban development M Venkaiah Naidu’sdescription of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as ‘God’s giftto India’ has provoked derision in the ranks of the opposition

while causing discomfiture within BJP, and might invite thesceptical observation that the remark is a point in favour of atheismor at least agnosticism.

NaMolatory – idolising Modi – is only one of several dissensionsconcerning iconic – or would-be iconic – figures, and who holds

proprietary rights over them.The heated exchange between Rahul Gandhi

and BJP chief Amit Shah, following the Congressvice-president’s statement to the effect that

‘Gandhi (Mohandas Karamchand) is ours, Savarkar (VinayakDamodar) is yours’, is one of many disputes arising out of whatmight be called copyright claims made by various political partiesover historical personages.

When ‘nationalism’ has become the catch-all buzzword of theday, can ‘Bapu’, the ‘Father of the nation’, be commandeered by asingle political organisation to the exclusion of all others, thecoincidence of his surname chiming with that of the ruling familywithin that party notwithstanding?

Conversely, should Savarkar – the redoubtable freedom figh terwho coined the term ‘Hindutva’ andhad the honorific of ‘Veer’ added tohis name – ‘belong’ to only one shadeof India’s many-hued political andideological spectrum?

Another tug-of-war between BJPand Congress, in an attempt to cornerthe Dalit vote, involves the framerof the country’s Constitution,Babasaheb Ambedkar, on whomMayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Partyhas since its inception put its ownregistered trade mark.

Meanwhile, Congress MP ShashiTharoor has added fuel to iconic ire by comparing controversialJNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar with Bhagat Singh, whosacrificed his life fighting for the country’s freedom. If the Left-liberalcamp holds up Kanhaiya as its latest poster boy, does that disquali fyit from genuflecting before the mar tyred freedom fighter?

Perhaps the most amicable way to settle such squabbles would beto devise a share-and-share-alike policy of national icons by whichdifferent political organisations could claim exclusive rights onthem on a turn-and-turn-about basis.

Such a roundabout solution would mirror the system of arevolving chief ministership once devised in UP between BJP andBSP, where each could have the gaddi for a six-month stretch beforerelinquishing it to the other. Or one could think of a quota system,like the one currently in force for education and j obs.

The disenchanted voter, however, might well conclude that suchgames of political won-upmanship are exploiting our icons forelectoral ends in a ploy best described as an ‘I con you’.

 Whose Icons Are They Anyway

 Political factions claim proprietary rightsover India’s historic heroes

This week, Myanmarbegan a new phase in its

 journey towards demo-cracy. U Htin Kyaw, aformer political prisoner,took over as the new pre-

sident on March 30. Aung San Suu Kyi, thebest-known former prisoner of conscience,

 joined the new cabinet as its sheet anchor.She has four important ministries (foreignaffairs, education, energy and the presi-dent’s office) and the overall responsibilityto lead the nation. The cabinet also includesthree lieutenant generals nominated byCommander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing.

Political adversaries of yesterday arenow partners in government. The armyruled the country since 1962. Now, a signifi-cant chunk of power shifts to leaderselected by the people. This is a long stridetowards democratic governance. The trans-ition process, begun with 2010 elections,gathered momentum with a landslidevictory of National League for Democracy(NLD) in the elections last November.

Is it a new dawn? Surely the changecannot be minimised. NLD now controlsboth houses of the parliament, has the bulkof cabinet posts, has nominated chief mini-sters of states, and will speak for the nation.But it shares power with the military.

The latter has provided the seniorvice-president, three critical ministers(home, defence and border affairs),controls 25% of MPs, and is inclined to

continue its political role sanctioned bythe constitution. The Myanmar politylooks like a car with two drivers.

Should the two principal partners – NLD and the army – cooperate fully, theycan lead the nation to a new dawn. All fri-ends of Myanmar should wish them well.

Thanks to the reform set in motion byThein Sein, the previous president, thenation has been recovering perceptiblyfrom decades of misrule, poverty,insurgencies and conflict. Inauguratingthe change was the military’s way torecognise misjudgments and failures of the past. The people have done the rest.

Through the first free and fair elec-tion since 1990, they sent out a powerful

message. The army received it, loud andclear. Aung San Suu Kyi’s governmentthus embarks on a his toric journey.

In a brief statement after his swearing-in, President Htin Kyaw identified fourmain goals: national reconciliation,internal peace, constitutional reform, andimprovement of the quality of people’s

lives. While taking oath on the existingconstitution, he emphasised it should be inaccord with ‘the democratic norms suitedto our country’. Resistance to achievingthis goal is expected from the army.

The new government faces dauntingchallenges. Many of them – ethnicconflict, Buddhist-Muslim tensions,Rohingya issue – will take a long time tobe resolved satisfactorily. They will testNLD’s political skills.

Other issues are even more urgent:designing constitutional reform, accelera-ting economic growth that is inclusive,implementing administrative reform, andcrafting a formula that allows the parlia-ment, government and military to work in

unison. The last task is of exceptionalsignificance. Only through a mixture of persistence and patience by one side (NLD)and flexibility by the other (army) canMyanmar hope to move forward.

How the new government conducts itsforeign policy will also be interesting towatch. Its policy approach may reflecta blend of NLD and army worldviews.The blending process will occur in thecurrent regional context when eastAsia experiences a sharpening strategiccontest between the US and China.

During her long struggle against

military rule Suu Kyi received valuablesupport from the West, whereas thegenerals – shunned by most nations – gotprecious succour from China. PresidentThein Sein showed a creative middle wayin the past five years. He built constructiverelations with the US, Japan and others,while re-fashioning the China equationwith a rare mixture of firmness andresilience. This line is likely to continue,

but initial endeavours to strengthenMyanmar-China ties are not ruled out.

As Myanmar’s new foreign ministerSuu Kyi may wish to establish c ooperativeties with Asean leaders, overcomingher party’s past grievances. Asean’s‘constructive engagement’ with themilitary-ruled Myanmar was not toNLD’s liking. Asean leaders are now set tovisit and cultivate the new leadership.

Suu Kyi is widely known as India’sfriend, a believer in Gandhian philosophyand an admirer of Jawaharlal Nehru.With her in power, India-Myanmarrelations should flourish in the normalcourse. Hopes are being expressed abouta possible return to ‘the golden age’ thatexisted in the 1950s.

An alternative view is that, asMyanmar experiments with two tracks of governance, India should merely ‘waitand watch.’ However, thoughtful expertspoint out that a passive Myanmar policywould be self-defeating. After all, Indiahas vital stakes in its eastern neighbourwhich, for its own reasons, needs India’sproactive cooperation.

Hence, it is time for New Delhi to unveila series of measures to upgrade relationswith Myanmar. This could include a high-level bilateral visit as soon as possible;agreement to hold an annual summit; anew and generous development package; afresh endeavour to motivate India Inc to en-hance its engagement; and a determineddrive to help civil society and expandpeople-to-people relations. At the sametime, communication and cooperationwith the army leadership should continue.

When opportunity knocks wisdomlies in welcoming it, equipped with asound plan.

The writer is Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House and former ambassador to Myanmar 

 A Giant Step For Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi anchors new democratic government, but tough challenges remain

Rajiv Bhatia

The Myanmar polity looks likea car with two drivers. Shouldthe two principal partners –NLD and the army – cooperatefully, they can lead the nation

to a new dawn

THE TIMES OF INDIA, BENGALURUSATURDAY, APRIL 2, 201616 COMFORTING THE AFFLICTED  AFFLICTING THE COMFORTABLE

A thought for today

Paramhansa Yogananda said thatwe should think of work as activemeditation, and meditation as

inward service – our daily activities andmeditation are not separate from eachother; they are two aspects of ourspiritual path. Here are some tips onhow to do that:

1. Remember God while you work:Keeping our mind focussed on Godwhile at work is the biggest hurdle,because for many of us most of ourwaking hours are spent at work. Thebiggest problem we face is forgetfulness.To remember God, there are two basicapproaches: Have little reminders sothat during pauses in your work, youcan bring your mind back to God.

But a deeper aspect is to feel that youare in God’s presence while you are

working. If you work in a retail store,you can relate to the customers as God.Bringing that awareness to your work

will dramatically change the way yourelate to others.

2. Consciously serve as a channelfor the Divine: An important aspect of seeing your work as service is to seeeverything you do as an opportunity toshare love, blessin gs and joy. Whateveryou are doing, try to feel thatyou are a channel for divineconsciousness. If you’reanswering emails, don’t do itmechanica lly. A good practiceis to take a moment andconsciously feel that you aresending blessings along withthe message.

3. Be calmly active andactively calm: There’s a storyabout Paramhansa Yoganandawhen he was late for a lectureand was running to the lecturehall. One of his disciples said, “Don’t be

nervous, Master.” Yogananda stoppedand said, “I’m not nervous, but not torun when you’re late is to be lazy!” He

priority should be to meditate when youget up in the morning and before you goto bed at night.

Taking a calmer, more expandedconsciousness into sleep will make yoursleep more restful and uplifting.

Paramhansa Yogananda said thatwe should also leave time for reading,study, perhaps for writing in a journal,and for laughter and fun. It’s importantto leave time for the right kind of relaxation: a walk in nature; anuplifting movie or book; uplifting andrelaxing times with friends. For somepeople, finding hobbies that enablethem to be alone and to relax deeply isalso very important.

At the end of your day, try not to takeyour work home with you.

 Follow Nayaswamis Jyotish and Devi at speakingtree.inThe Speaking Tree is alsoavailable as an 8 page newspaper every

Sunday for Rs 3. Book your copy of TheSpeaking Tree with your newspaper vendor or SMS STREE to 58888.

was saying that you can put a lot of energy into what you are doing, butthat doesn’t mean you have to benervous and agitated. To be calmlyactive is an important goal fordaily life.

A friend of ours was a nurse in theemergency room of ahospital. She would meditateeach morning before shewent to work. At lunchtime,she would meditate in hercar in the parking lot becauseit was the only place whereshe could be alone. Otheremergency room staff members would as k her,“How is it that you’re so calmall the time?” Sh e would say,“It’s because i meditate.”

4. Prioritise your dailyactivities:To establish the right

balance between your work andspiritual life, it is very important toprioritise your daily activities. The first

Creating Space In Our Lives For GodNayaswamis Jyotish and Devi

thespeaking

tree

dilbert

 just in jest! 

   C    h   a    d   C   r   o   w   e

   S   a   n    d   e   e   p   A    d    h   w   a   r   y   u

When you livein a democraticcountry with acomplex andenormouslydiverse people

like India, you will have tocontend with a multitude of views on everything, especiallyon national identity. You can’tget a Kashmiri and a Gujarati toagree on what constitutes adecent cup of tea, let alone thedefinition of nationalism.

But BJP’s new-found love fornationalism seems at variancewith the fact that Indians havemore than one identity and livewith the many contradictionsquite comforta bly. The partywants all Indians to chant ‘BharatMata ki jai’ or be branded anti-national, in its latest attempt tostuff its own version of Indiadown everyone’s throat.

This desperate bid to fashionan all-encompassing nationa-

lism has left it chasing its owntail on a complex issue that isas much about Indian identityas it is about realpolitik andnation-building – the SutlejYamuna Link Canal.

How does BJP explain that itsown coalition with Akali Dal inPunjab denotified the land of the

Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal at atime when the issue is being

heard in the Supreme Courtthrough a presidential reference?The 214-km-long project wasconceived nearly 40 years ago tocarry much needed Ravi andBeas river waters to the parchedfields of Haryana and Rajasthan,but it never took off as stategovernments of different hues inPunjab refused to share riverwaters with neighbouring states.

If BJP is a genuine votary of 

one stiff definition of what

constitutes the nation, it shouldhave attacked Congress forcancelling all of Punjab’s wateragreements with other stateswhen it was in power in 2004. ButBJP never challenged anything.Instead, the Punjab assembly onMarch 14 unanimously approvedthe denotification to give back

the land acquired for the canal toits original owners. Therewasn’t even a whimper of protestfrom the 12 BJP MLAs whosupported the move.

This despite the fact thatBJP’s own central governmentwas arguing in the SupremeCourt that Punjab should comp-lete the canal and share waters.Punjab chief minister ParkashSingh Badal then went onrecord to say that he did not have

a drop of water to share withother states.

In such a scenario, it is onlynatural to ask which act is moreanti-national by BJP standards – an individual not saying ‘BharatMata ki jai’ or a state refusing toshare river water with itsneighbours and denying them a

about our region or state orcommunity when it comes to

sharing river waters or reserva-tion to certain communities asseen in Haryana and Gujarat.

And there will be timeswhen we will forget about thenation and state and feelvery strongly about personalfreedoms, like in the case ofKanhaiya Kumar. Neither ismutually exclusive of the other.Our nationalism is the sum of allthese identities put together.

Because BJP refuses to see itthat way, it has become thedirector of a farce on the issue of the canal. The flag-bearer ofIndia’s nationalism is in power atthe Centre, it has a coalition withAkali Dal in Punjab and it has fullmajority governments in Harya-na and Rajasthan. You have asituation where BJP has joinedhands with Akali Dal in Punjabto challenge BJP at the Centre, inHaryana and in Rajasthan.

So, BJP is fine with dissentand a difference of opinion on a

crucial national issue betweenits leaders, but not okay withthe rest of the country having adifference of opinion! Theparty will have to give up thesedouble standards and come toterms with the fact that India’snationalism has many faces;none of them are ugly.

precious natural resource thatcan make life easier for thou-sands of struggling farmers?

Let us ask the same questiondiffere ntly. Is it not doublestandards to shout ‘BharatMata ki jai’ the loudest, but thenforget about Bharat and pick upa fight with neighbours withinBharat over an issue that affects

 just one small fragment thathe belongs to? What is moreimportant – one fragment of 

Bharat or the sum of all frag-ments that make up Bharat?

Ideally, no citizen should beforced to make such a choice,and frankly, it is okay to havethese contradictions. We feel verystrongly about India on certainissues like cricket and terro-rism. We feel equally strongly

Punjab BJP disagrees radically with national BJP, yetparty proposes unitary nationalism for the rest of us

Robin.David@timesgroup.com

Which act is moreanti-national by BJPstandards – anindividual not saying‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ or astate refusing to shareprecious river waterwith its neighbours?

The incidents in Pune’s Fergusson College, my alma mater, inthe third week of March left a taste of ash in the mouth. Mysense of dismay has nothing to do with the fact that right-wingHindu organisations were pitted against Left-wing andAmbedkarite ones. Conservatives and reformers have locked

horns since the college was established in 1885.What galled me was the conduct of the college authorities. The principal,

Ravindra Singh Pardeshi, has a lot to explain. He hasn’t come clean on whetherhe gave AVBP permission to hold a meeting on the campus on March 22 toallow the head of the outfit in JNU, Alok Singh, to speak about what transpiredin his university on February 9. AVBP claimed that no such per mission wasneeded since the meeting was an ‘informal’ one. Pardeshi has remained mumon this issue.

The principal then wrote to the police to say that they needed to investigatethe ‘anti-national’ slogans raised during this meeting. Within hours hewithdrew his complaint on the ground that there were ‘typographical errors’in it. The police concluded that no such slogans were raised. Even AVBPconcurred with this conclusion.

On the face of it, this speaks poorly of Pardeshi’s administrative abilities.But this is only a partial explanation. The other, more distressing bit is hissupine acceptance of the diktats of those who call the shots in the governanceof the college. Several members of various governing bodies of the DeccanEducation Society, which effectively runs Fergusson College, are said tobelong to, or are close to, the Sangh Parivar. The principal can ill afford to rubthem the wrong way, especially after BJP came to power at the Centre and i nMaharashtra.

This was not the case in the past. Right from its establishment the DeccanEducation Society, which founded Fergusson College, has been plagued byconflicts. Ranged on one side were champions of Hindu orthodoxy, led by B GTilak, and on the other Hindu reformers like M G Ranade, G G Agarkar, R G

Bhandarkar and G K Gokhale. They quarrelledover such issues as the age of consent for marriage,women’s right to education, anti-cow killing

agitation, mobilisation of public opinion againstcolonial rule by organising Ganesh festivals and commemorating the birth of Chattrapati Shivaji, widow remarriage and so forth.

The quarrels were often quite bitter. On women’s education, for example,Tilak was unequivocal. For him a woman’s place was in the home. Her foremostvirtues, he held, should be ‘obedience to the husband’, ‘af fectionate devotionto her husband and children’ and ‘contentment with her lot in life’. Anacquisition of a BA degree, he contended, would not compensate for theabsence of these qualities. To this Agarkar retorted: ‘What greater foolishnessis there than to say that by good education and by acquiring learning, womenwill become immoral, imprudent and irresponsible.’

Tilak also chastised the reformers for debunking the role of religion inpolitics. On September 20, 1896, he published an editorial in his newspaperMaratha that contained this passage: ‘Religion is the mainstay, the only propfor a failed nation and some of our friends are committing national suicide inwithholding themselves from a movement which is making us hopeful for thefuture.’ On another occasion he called on the reformers to form a separatenationality. Why? Because ‘we have been shamelessly represented as a nationof savages and the reformers have shamelessly testified to it.’

The difference between what happened then and what has been happeningof late is this: the rivals then were thinkers of the finest vintage whereas now itis a tiresome parade of philistines. The rivals then, unlike today, exchanged ideas,not blows. All were staunch patriots, not, as is the case now, hate-mongeringpseudo-nationalists or lumpens wielding the whip against those who dare tochallenge them – liberals, leftists, Ambedkarites.

Moreover, at least until my time, Fergusson College principals, each one ascholar of repute, refused to trim their sails to the prevailing wind. I can’t

vouch for the scholarly attainments of those who succeeded them. But, goingby the record, most possessed the spine of an eel. I weep for my alma mater thatwas a fount of liberal thought.

A Taste Of Ash

Dileep Padgaonkar

 How Fergusson College, my alma mater,succumbed to the diktats of right-wing jingoists

talkingterms

ROBYN HITCHCOCK, UK musician

We need to build totems and shrines and icons,but nobody’s sure in honour of what